SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Gold/Mining/Energy : Global Platinum & Gold (GPGI)
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Richard Mazzarella who wrote (5503)3/31/1998 12:24:00 PM
From: Ed Fishbaine  Read Replies (2) of 14226
 
To all,

There have been some questions on the thread and I'll try to answer them as best I can

1.Bankes asks about a "disturbed" ore pile interfering with a COC.

This has never occurred to me. The ore pile is just there. It was homogenized by the process of reducing it from raw ore to enhanced ore when it was stripped of its detritus. When Brian Russell took samples I assume he took from various places on the pile to achieve an average sampling as best he could. He is a real pro and knows what he is doing.

2. Marks asks about "standard assay" I believe it was a fire assay but do not know if it was lead based. I will look into this for my own edification. What I do know is that it did not use the catalyst. I think this is because Brian Russell is an old timer who has been doing these evaluations for decades and wasn't about the modify his procedure to satisfy Russell Twiford. There is no doubt in my mind that with the catalyst the finding would have been on an order of many multiples of what was reported. Originally Twiford was miffed by the low results (relative to what he himself is getting) but a 13 gram finding is truly a bonanza relative to hard rock mining.

3. Mazzarella uses $30 as a net value of the recovered material. This is a 90% haircut which I do not think is even used in hard rock mining calculations. But in an operation such as Global's which is esssentially a chemical treatment process with no need for the extrordinary costs of underground mining using 90% is way out of line. Mazarella is also incorrect in his thinking about the processing costs. With economies of scale these will become practically insignificant.

Finally, the 500,000 ton Hassayampa enhanced ore pile is a minor amount of the raw ore on the Hassayampa property. There is at least 15 million tons of raw ore down to perhaps 30 feet. There is no reason to believe that the deposit stops at 30 feet. And in all such deposits the grade level improves with depth because of the weight of the PGMs gradually sinking though lighter material over the eons.

This says nothing about the Weaver Creek which holds some 100 million tons down to 30 feet. Weaver Creek material tested at least as good as the Hassayampa (there was some indication that ikt was richer). Also do not forget the Oro Grande.

Therefore to sell one's shares on the basis of the Russell report is not only shortsighted, IMO, it suggests a bitter attitude probably based on some early life experiences of broken promises leading to a perpetual orientation to the world of pessimism, doubt and chronic dissapointment.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2026 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News